The Sun. — London, England, 1864-01-27 00:00:00

Messrs, Bright and Scholefield at Birmingham, BIRMINGHAM, Tuesday Evening. Mr. Bright, M.P., and Mr. Scholefield, M.P., attended a meeting in the Townhall this evening, for the purpose of addressing their constituents on public affairs. The hall was crowded in every part. Mr. HOLLIDAY, the Mayor of Birmingham, occu pied the chair, and having briefly opened the pro. ceedings, Mr. G. DIXON moved the following resolution— " The present House of Commons having been elected on the question of Reform, and the majority of its members having pledged themselves to pro. mote an extension of the franchise, this meeting records its opinion that the Parliament has failed in its duty in not having passed a measure which would have admitted a large number of the unen franchised to a real share in the government of the nation ; and that this meeting believes the present period to be favourable to the passing of such a measure, the necessity for which has on various occasions been enforced by her 'Majesty's Ministers, and by the leaders of both political parties." The motion having been seconded by Mr. Alder man MANTON, was put and unanimously agreed to. Mr. SCHOLEFIELD, M.P., then rose to address the meeting, and was received with mingled cheers and hisses, but the cheering greatly predominated. He observed that he was prepared to-night, as he always had been, to address his constituents, and he trusted that if any differences of opinion pre vailed they would agree to discuss those differences in perfect good temper. With regard to the last session of Parliament he did not agree with those who asserted that nothing was done during that session. He believed many useful measures had been passed, and he knew of none of an obnoxious cha racter except those odious restrictions in reference to the game laws which both himself and his col league had opposed to the utmost of their power' lie was not sanguine that any great measure would be passed next session. The reins of government were in hands that were not certainly very strong. The power of the Government was at the mercy of the Coiservatives at any moment, and such being the case we could not look for any important mea- want to see done, and I believe it would be better for the public if the freedom was given to the owners of land what is given to the possessors of other property. (Loud cheers.) There is one other point on which I wish to make a remark. The man who buys and the man who sells property finds the law regulating the transfer so complicated, that if Solo mon himself were here he could not come to any fair deci sion about it except that very curious one which he is re • ported to have done upon another point. (Cheers and laugh ter.) Now, everything which I am proposing is carried out to a somewhat greater extent in the United States, in most of the States, and to a greater extent on the continent of Europe; and it is being carried out en all the Australian colonies. It is the most curious thing in the world that whenever an Englishman leaves these shores, whether it be the effect of the salt air, or of sea sickness, or of that pro longed meditation which a long voyage invites, he seems to peel off, not the rags of his body, but the verminous rags off his intellect and soul ; he lands in Australia with his eyes perfectly clear, and he can see things in a common sense manner. (Laughter and cheers.) Now, I want to ask you, as reasonable men and men of business, if there is a man here who cannot understand the question mode rately well in the way in which I have endeavoured to put it. Is this spoliation? Is this agrarian outrage ? Is this stimulating working men and the agricultural labourer to--what shall I say ?—incendiarism or anything else he may have recourse to ? It is nothing of the kind. It is laying before them just principles of law, admitted to be just in every other country in the world except this, and which we admit to be just in regard to everything else, charged with all sorts of dread ful things by that gentleman in the mask, On the 27th of November ho wrote this about Mr. Cobden :—" He (Mr. Cobden) stoops down and picks up a missile which has never yet been used but for anarchy and for revolution. Is it not in effect to tell the labourer and the workman to look over the fence of the labouring proprietor, and to learn them to think they have a natural right to a slice of the soil?" The law steps in and maakes it difficult to sell and to buy ; then I say that labourer has a right to look over the hedge and to feel that the law deals a grievous injustice—(loud cheers) — and it is this gentleman in the mask that frightens the landed proprietors. I met the other day with a gentleman connected with one of the largest properties in the kingdom. He said to me (and he is a very liberal and thoughtful man), "You have no idea of the terror which ye ur speeches create among the landed gentlemen." (Laughter.) I never frighten any of my neighbours. Ido not know why I should be so alarming to those gentlemen who live in their great houses and their castles ; but the fact is, that the landed gentlemen are not a wise class. (Laughter.) There are brilliant exceptions. (Hear, hear.) There are many men amongst them who cannot be surpassed by any of their class, or of any class in the world ; but as a class—and perhaps one might say it of nearly every class—l believe it is true of the class to which I belong in Lancashire, they are not a wise class. They know something of agriculture. County members have to get it up for agricultural dinners—(laugh ter and cheers)—and they know something about horses, and they know all that can be known on the subject of game. (Laughter and cheers.) Nell, e n the principles of law and of government, speaking of them as a whole, and judging of them by their past force, they are dark as night itself. Would you believe that the landed proprietors never found out, till Mr. Cobden and I and a few others told them, that the corn law was a great injury to them. (Laughter and cheers.) They did not know that it actually diminished the value of the land and diminished the security of their rents, and that it loaded them with an inconceivable amount of odium. whilst at the same time it beggared hundreds of thousands of the people, and it menaced this nation with revolution. (Cheers.) Mr. Cobden and others who acted with us— chiefly perhaps because we were the most prominent—Were slandered then, and by the gentleman in the mask, just as we have been now. (Cheers.) The 2intes was as foul mouthed upon us 20 years ago as it is now. (Cheers.) They said that we went about the country eetting class against class. (Cries of " True," and " Shame.") They said that our views led to the confiscation of landed property. They said, in fact, everything that was spiteful and untrue, as they say now ; and yet is there a man in this country who will not admit that property is more secure in consequence of the abolition of that law which they believed to be the anchor of their safety, that animosities between class and class have been allayed ; and who shall tell how much it is owing to that that our Queen at this moment wields an un challenged sceptre over a tranquil realm ? (Great cheering.) A landowner in the House of Commons, an old member of the house, a representative of a south-western county, a man of excellent character, for whom I have always had the greatest respect, even when he was the most wrong—(hear) —said to me not long ago, speaking about the corn laws, they didn't then know the good wo were doing to his class. (Laughter.) I nuged him and said " Well, if you would only have faith I could tell you one or two other things— (laughter)—that would do you just as much good if you would let us try them." (Cheers.) But he had not faith (Great laughter.) Now I will just say to the landowners that I never was more their friend than in discussing this question as I am doing to-night without the least animosity to them—(laughter)—and with a belief as firm as I ever had on the question of the corn laws, that their interests are bound up with the interests of the people in the right solution of this question. (Cheers.) I would ask to what are they tend ing under the operation of these laws? They are becomkig every year smaller and smaller in numbers—the large ones are rapidly eating up the small ones. The census returns show that the number cf landed proprietors is but a handful in the nation, and every day becoming fewer and fewer. Their labourers remain at the old nine or ten shillings a •week. Somebody will write to the papers to-morrow and say they get twelve shillings—(laughter)—but bear in mind that they do not always receive wages on wet days— (loud laughter)—and I believe that the average money income of the agricultural labourer throughout the United £ingdom will not exceed, and many persons will say it will not reach, ten shillings per week. The smaller in number these landed proprietors become, the snore, it may be, these labourers become discontented, There may arise some political acci dents, and political accidents come almost as unlookel for as other accidents. You do not hear the tread of the earth quake which topples down your finest architecture, and the country gentlemen do not see the tread of that danger—it may be that catastrophe which inevitably follows upon pro- longed unjust legislation. (Cheers.) And there may come a time—and I durst prophesy that it will come if there be an obstinate retention of our present system—when there will be a movement in this country to establish not what I believe to be the just, moderate, and sufficient plan which I recommend, but a plan which shall be in accordance with that which is established by the Code Napoleon in France, and which is spreading rapidly over the whole continent of Europe. I would ask them again how do they propose to keep their population if this system is to be maintained. And now I beg the attention of you working men who are here to two or three observations upon this point. America, though 3,000 miles off, is not so far off but that people may go over there in about 12 days, and they may go there for a sum varying from £2 to £5. During the year that has just passed, I think 150,000 or 160,000 persons have sailed from this country to New York. (Bravo and cheers.) Every man who settles there is not blinded by mystifications and falsehoods of the New York Correspondent of the Times. (Cheers.) He is there, and can see what the working man gets, how he is considered, and what he is, and he writes over to his friends in this country, as has been the case for years in Ireland, and the result has been that Ireland has been drained not of its surplus population, but of the popu lation actually necessary to the proper cultivation of the soil. (Loud cheers.) Now let me tell you a fact, and if you do not treasure it up in your minds, I hope one of those gentlemen, the landowners, who think I am very hostile to them, will just think it over, if he has time, as he eats his breakfast to-morrow or next day. (Laughter.) In America there are at this moment 140 millions of acres of land sur veyed, mapped, and set apart for those who are ready to settle upon them. In the year 1861, that was the first year after this war attained its present proportions, there were not less than 40,000 new farms, over 80 acres each, occupied in the Western States; but the Government of the United States, not content with that measure of progress, passed an act which came into operation on Jan. 1, 1863, which was called the Homestead Act. I have a copy of the act here, and I have a copy also of the circular which was issued at the same time. - What is that Homestead Act? It is this —it says that any man or woman, 21 years of age, or younger, if the man happened to have been for a fortnight or a month in the service of the United States—whether in the army or navy, may go into these territories, may choose w hat is called a" section," which is 150 acres of land, being one-fourth of a square mile, and on payment of a fee of 10 doll., which is equal to £2 English, he may apply and have this land conveyed to him for no other payment for five years, and it cannot be alienated. Heis not allowed to sell it. It remains in his possession, and at the end of five years—he having done to it what the Government requires, that is, settled upon it and begun cultivation, and so f or th —then the law gives him what is called a patent, but which is, in fact, what we call a Parliamentary title—the land is absolute freehold for ever. (Cheers,) Now ' it would not t a ke more than £l5 for a man to go from Birmingham to the territory where this land is to to disposed of. if ho had not got any money by which he could take up the 160 acres, and begin to cultivate it, and would e m vd s ey e ie l oa f durgos tiwnohgeaab about neighbouring e e f a k r mer', wages,e b w es i u d l e d s ho , e g n o g t ag l s be h li i his tw o board r a e n e ; w a o n u d l d if b h e e a w b l o e r kt to ed d s a a y s e a a labou smallr e s r u f t o ur , o au f d hi a s s fa a r re f e , e a b n o d l d h e o r w o ( u L l o d ü b d e o s b e e t t e r e s d . d o N w n o w t sufficient for hi m t o commence t h e cultivation of a portion he d r o s a n s o t a let me leave you with the id ea th a t th ere i s no roug h a nd rugged career in this. Th ere i s muc h t h at i s roug h a nd much that is rugged. But there is a good deal of that in this country now. (Cheers.) When a man looks upon those children tnat make, even in th e p oores t h ouse , so metimes a gleam of joy—when he thi n k s w h a t t h ese b o y s and girls must be in this country—never to rise one step higher than that which he occupies now as agricultural labourers ; and then he looks abroad and he sees them not labourers in the sense that wo use the word here—not tenants even, but freehol ders, and landowners, and farmers of their own property, then I say that the temptation held out to men here to emi grate, if he knew all the facts, would be irresistible to hun dreds and thousands who have now no thought of moving to another country. Even our agricultural labourer's con damn is improved in some respects. There are some feeble ......r.......••••••••••••••!............................." ...".'""...." ere are newr efforts made to give him a little instruction. Tla ;rue deemed papers published at a price which was at one t. i t villages, amnpossible. They fled their way into agricultur the i r e yes andd the labourers will gradually begin to °' t o lipossiblo aa to see that a change of their position is not so i. that tbe they once thought it was. Off'w what it; it —they United States offer more 2 Theyer social eqnallt) _ y ban offer political equality—they offer to every child of ev• ru ing in whose face I am now looking education from tht ' I ce o far, of his alphabet up to, if he has the capacity to trav el : ie jt is the highest knowledge of classics and mathematics W" try offered to the best students in the colleges of this c cli h n ; ,., - ; and all that without the payment of one single fa, 4. "'": t .,' except that general payment in which all the peopi i P th , ticipate in the school-rate of the various states ' 08 . to Union. Well, now, I ask you if lam wrong in se Y i . 0 0 the rich and to the great, that I believe, if til e / r to whila to t i v@ their own interest, it would be worth their i make this country a more desirable one for the Pa ° t ' .) s vo . (Cheers.) It they disregard this great questiot 400 who are of the middle class —or not absolutely' P ° terr i. class—shall have to decide between the claims of out tb. t : conv tonal magnates and the just rights of millions al e ` r aof I Laeet them, lay. trymen. (Cheers) There are some men -- and then--and I wonder where they wore ho' ll ' 4 „ all i . d, v i 3l they came into the world, who regard thes. , do wn magnates ha as idols before whom we are Al' to bow' i s a the r i c t the y tribe a ble submission. I think travellers tell us in Africa so entirely given up to superstition tb' do t hat th I ttii , fill their huts and hovels with so many idols not leave room for their families. It may be g e irl t Ito trieleaerheto country, that we build up a system which is dt.' our rpolitical freedom, and is destructive of the be. 4 i sta r s the great mass of our producing ICag . e - b and wor 1 0 for (Cheers.) Now, am I the enemy of any class if lOW said ward to state facts • like these, and to explain prliciples:'l, 6 i n the da r t :„ 7 . as these ? Shall we go groping continually m king no effort to strengthen our position ? D e / 1; svitl l pose the because I stand here I love better to find 1 5 ' 1 " to o laws of my country than to praise them, that I stil e py Englishwith h and less patriotic, or that I have less YreChave. country and my countrymen than other %actor' (Cheers.) my ..u., I want our country to be populous, to be k an d nevert andl to be happy ; but this end can only be attaineatwo has been attained in any country butt b just o t ° justly administered. I plead only for what I believ e 1 eta s snot. nod I wish to do wrong to no man. For 25 ears 1,,,,11/ tbefore audiences, great meetings of DV countrwt; ,t time pleading only for justice. (Loud cheers.) Dariago.ito you know, I have endured measureless ins time, I have as n e ed or e passed through hurricanes of abuse. tell rich you that my clients have not generally beeilloly, and the great, but rather the poor a nd tb e a - dig' (Hear, hear.) They cannot give rae Pla ce 9. : 11 ,, le lds nities and wealth ; but their honourable ser'P c- „ l c , m th e that which is of far higher and more lasting ce.held• ins consciousness that I have been expounding alid.,,id tO g laws which, though they were not giveD It'i Or thunders of Sinai, are not less the coraniandnieatB °OO-40 andofnot less intended to promote and secure the b e : P A s t rea t men. (The hon. gentleman resumed his seat OP" cheering.) d a t lc ° A vote of thanks to Mr. Scholefield and gr. ; 11 ' 0 ' il ot t'/ subsequently carried, and the proceedi n g s Were Dr a termination at half-past ten o'clock. COUNTRY MARIKETS. BRISTOL—TUESD O• 011 Aar There was a full attendance o f the trade `_`' . „tice "- e verything was held firmly, with a f air coall"'r ;(I --- SHEFFIELD—TuEsDAV. , 110 trittlii 1:11ere was a full average show of grain, bu t ',,,ers br ocs wheat ruled extremely dull, and former prices tittod maintained. Other articles also dull. 1116 od was unusually small. A to 115 6 4 os 0- igs 0 Red wheat, per lead of 3 imperial bushels.. • -a to 4 0 White .17 8 t) , to li 6,1 If f •• os 6 .. i New red ' .. id to ,',:6 ' • .11 51 : %d tO o i li:Oi New white .If f f .. ^ 04 tL,O 0 Beans ~ r t, . 40 3 1 t() ., ' ni Peas, per qr Grinding, barley, per qr .......... ', o d to 01 0 04 INlalting ditto, ... ' 3 ' o ato- I, ............... 106 Oats 1, 00000000000000000 , Flour, is 4d to is Sd per 14 IP' 1 J r° LEEDS—TuEsDAY• „ter ° I3 loo' , There are good arrivals of grain both bY I I : l ed :0 6 this week. The wheat trade to-day contirotat P A r i e oc o and only a limited business was done et so rts''' - '' rates. Good barley without change ; other e d. to sell. Oats, beans, and other articles unalter 'Dv sPO'g oto rje ; MARKET HARBOROTIGII---• -5 r 3 ,, White wheat,:42s to 44s ; red, 36s to 40s P e 29tacr'd Malting barley at 33s to 36s per qr. ; f Ti t g o n w l s te s l .6 per 30 st. Oats, old, 26s to 298; new,. k v ' at. ; beans, 338 to 388 per qr. —.—..--. ..4 61° LIVERPOOL—TtrEsnAY• deolowfed There was a small attendance both et - ~ n ot • i Figs country millers at market to-day. Whe. a— n f ltis"utoro' slow sale, at no improvement on the pr . loe s 7 0 , L'" it, i i Flour quiet, but nominally unchanged 111Pri.0,30P,2A, P' oatmeal met a dull sale, and prices about st!in 3 00 , F little doing in Indian corn—holders askuclg buyers only offering 30s. -----7—_-' Foreign Mail Packet VA' MAILS DUE. feu' • . Nustralia and Mauritius, via Southampton.•• a: . 1 . 43,, , via Marseilles .... .‘t , p kirazil and Cape Verde, by British Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Il e o to0. 1 0 7 " China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southt!, r_ .„•' ~ via , itu ., e illeo , u. '''' ... ''' . / 611 ' 1. Falkland Islands pac!cet..ie.t9a:::,lb., Al., . •• ...... ...„, F e b , ., y, Gibraltar, via Southampton ........ India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Soutll4 ~..'l 4 O O , a, vial arscs ..., b , 0. ~. fe l i, India (Bombay), via Southampton ..... '. ...'fel). ... ;toe" foil. 4, via Marseilles ........... , ... 4 ,-5, Portugal.... .......................... ' ...• pil. :i , Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via SoutharoPoil:;, ....rob. via Marseilles ... ~. 4, Newfoundland .......................... ~..0.0, ' U. S. and British N. America, . • .'' ,'• . Oportoo c et.•'' _ . by Brit. 0 cto t...' pa. i d, by 11 • S ' PB O plie Vt ,T eb ' ll' by Canacli° .. ~. we b, 5, W.C. of Africa, Madeira, and Tencriffe .... ,,..kr0." ' Bahamas!, a New York ............... ::.': .' I .l oi. ' )3 All I.i parts .. of "vi ........... .Indies, ' .... . . including . . • ..... .... . r .o California. and British Columb ia. ....... No nomn complete without a I VC CIA ,,, C :i 11 tt ariarP : ll' t 6l:4s : 4°': WING-MAOHINE noiseless. SE IYarrantedSlintoPlcit'uelt°llniaPiV;ll7 7:44j sp re P tic° , perfect s,faire Regent-street, l e y a m t - s a f c a h e i e n t e ; w l ._ 'r o[sAppecvca.si 1r c e (:)jj [ADVERTISEMENT.j—Consumption, /illgt:_eqrev,°:r,es,,tllll;lllll3l,i°3:l7:; g l liver, perfectlyt a e n i d ca s ua t rd e a m b ' acceleratedla stomach complaints,h b.y4o,27,lo.b ~Iymv tei. h. quote Ju l l uaosne c ads r / I egro : rel y s , ,te 'd ascrsei 0 : leci i is l: : :l li l i e jojii 'l eu il i ll o tfr i , Arabica Foo il a tit s oi been misa considered l,a Du Darr abandoned nge, 18 exhaustion, il u e l a m lt o h n y, B b a y r r d y r ,uag health oof ev y h e o a p r e s of s of age, cured recovery af t fromtlie,l:,: ee s i p a s ec t :leteirti Y consumption, with fearful cou.,`"1,01100 ',fel,. Surrey, of thsirt emaciated anX ‘,""0,1041ei to a skeleton. She ' is P now all blooming, fleshy crirl. N. 'Lange, `.°, of 0010 derangement, and partial deafness. s Police. Cure, itobervo,i 0000,00 - y - ynegarost, diseased per girth gs, , nre, treop spitting 0 ,121, 000, Elizabeth Jacobs, of extreme lie—rye:se; : l e o i s" 0.,,,,111t,': ein;4o:-1:# gatherings, low spirits, and nervous fanc'ewa, 1:0"igte• 54,810. The Rev. James T. Campbell, FaXifincia bad 4' 6 4 11' ; of indigestion and torpidity of the liver, N":;11), .4 0 " : 40 ;, ' 1 all medical reatment. In tins, 11b, 2 0 9;,,;d Ca' 0 3 ,: i l it ts; 121 b, 225; 241 b, 40s. Barry du Barri:i,/,,soliff;,:Yowlis; egent-street, London ; also Fortnum an',,,ited l''':ills',,', grocers and chemists in every town of the I , ' t 0 ,(1 x, (l ,o'' [AnvERTISEMENT.]--Holloway's OintB/1 l ost 11 ; 1 0 0 : 3 0 Healing not Harmful.—No application lifleroalii'i, Cleni same universal approbation for curing, all e4io- 00re a V.Ol os a r it s fßmd t that rs soundness wpaihffl this l i e c se h ttbihoyon unguent has received. , c os, 6 ' l3 e rv. a; ulcers, fetid discharges, burns, blistered sur f l a t 01l t c., a tt i d"• may are eoallot h a w t yaym'sa onceyo issaosotintehatenudte,. ni ii ri sie, , ri virteills:b lat:icoo;c-0,:tio;;, ing and the poor may help themselvestabealL4 p,so.oto: imneedvicearyments hamlet.are reia,hsoenyabl ' p ice all i f o tiff j 6 swelled legs, and ulcerate h d aev l e i spect of a happy future, after every 1 1 °P' - / been given up. --' iraneffb'ser,cteadnfloprAeesoofe°tirocacotylel3;il, -_____ ---------------- if fi Births. tlo r bars' , 0, COCKERELL.—On the 25th inst., at C lanbedaughter'o, of Captain Cockerell, 10th Hussas, of t' w ife ° J ,,05 /1' DA.THAN.—On the 23d inst. at Southses, e o f 0 , Pathan, Esq., R.N., of 'H.M.S. Pao cso ' ,1,- 4° ' ter. , ~: 105. , GURNE2.—On the 26th inst ,at gouneo" 00-. Gurney, of a son. . STAMEII,—OR the 25th inst., Trent, Lady Stainer, of a son. Jo 01 t ° MarriagaetsC.lig Vilic' s°(3‘ at PlfoOtO CAssin-V—O'BRIEN,— On the 19th inSt., 1,00006000 Valentine Cassidy, Esq., of Rillyou, toii Ellen, the youngest daughter of the I° b ast Sic ''' O'Brien, Bart. - IveVrit.olos' PATES —HART.— On the 21st inst., at li-e 0 , ) to,(01,,doO. Ellary Papps, Esq., of Kensington. daughter of Commander Hart, R.N., of i .. 10 1 i" Deaths. , le-sosre ;4. BLlss.—On the 25th inst., at 24, Lonsda ~, Il l ' ton, Mr. Edwin Bliss, aged 66. ..1„ Job- ,r BIRCPI.-0a the 24th inst., at IlenleY•13A"" , 00( Birch, Esq., aged 89. 00 ° :ifo . tqt V ° le 1. BRINCKMAN.--011 the 23d inst., a., ~-. . _ Co st t Windsor, Lady Brinckman, of Sunder o V' Sir Theodore IL L. Brinekraan, 13art. roes 03,69; C lir Richardn4- . oBnetwhieey24cthatoinns,t3LaAt .13, cilmdfilll3:infiebel;-:0'1'64 De dfor; ., °f ool' colnshire, far Lieut. in the .t, 2: ,_..h bs!,, Siii in the campn in Egypt under Si !ioiFiii t i l e ii. , o °l in 1801, and was subsequently DisP r „ D ire, Lincoln Militia, aged 90. Cociteibt.h—, 00qt.h,eag24eitihv. inst., at Woburn, lionrin.—On the 26th inst., 4 0 land-street, Banks. aged 82. 1440;$110; ------------ ; OA. rICh 0. __-------_—__--_ ,at TOE th e L of No. 112, Strand, _. 4 , Strand, in the PreCinet of the '3tivoy.. London: Prinzed and Pubfished ley W 1,1 ; 1 0 )4 ; Oftice.3ooll' allUarY 2 7, I°Y— iiiiddletleX --P,Zedneoday, J Thowas flora, THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 27, 1564• hares from the Ministry. Nor did he believe, a though the resolution referred to a Reform Bill as a question of importance, that the present Parliament -would ever take that question up in a manner to justify the expectations which appeared to be enter tained. With regard to foreign questions, he thought the Government were perfectly right in refusing to enter into the Congress proposed to them by France, but he regretted that the manner in which that over ture from France was met had been more logical than courteous. As to the Danish difficulty, he did not profess to be master of all the complications of the question, but he sincerely hoped that we should not allow ourselves to be mixed up in it. He trusted it would be borne in mind that although by the Treaty we acknowledged the succession, we did not guarantee it. If the King of Denmark was in diffi culties, like al! other Sovereigns in difficulties he must fight out his own battles, and not rely on us to help him. (Cheers.) His own opinion was that the policy to be adopted by her Majesty's Govern ment was a policy of strict non-intervention. When Parliament assembled next week he believed that the Queen's speech would contain no promise of a Reform Bill, but he entertained sanguine hopes that when the state of the finances of the country was laid before Parliament it would be found that there was another surplus, and that consequent upon that there would be another reduction of taxation. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer was thew orthy successor of Sir R. Peel, and was determined to carry out the great doctrine of free trade, to reduce the expenses of the country, and to raise the funds necessary for the Government in a way less burdensome to the people. To show the efEct which a free-trade policy had produced, he might state that from 1840 to 1862 taxes in the shape of Cus toms were abolished to the extent of £23,000,000, - whilst the taxes imposed amounted to £9,000,000, showing a net reduction in favour of the taxpayer of £14,000,000 sterling, and yet those taxes which in 1830 produced only £35,000,000, produced no less than £41,000,000 in 1862. The assessments for the income tax which in 1840 were £192,000,000, amounted in 1861 to £276,000,000. The exports and imports, which amounted to £172,000,000 in 1840, in 1862 had risen to the prodigious amount of £393,000,000. Turning to another topic the hon. gentleman said when in 1862 he stated his views with regard to the American civil war—(cheers and hisses)—be hoped it would not have been necessary for him again to allude to the subject on that occa sion. He differed from a large number of his best and warmest friends, and from his hon. colleague, with whom he differed on no other subject. (Cheers.) He had not changed his opinions, how ever unpopular those opinions might be. (Cheers and hisses.) He was not about to change them. He had never sought mere popularity, and never would do so. A. great trust bad been confided to him, which he had executed to the best of his ability ; and when his constituents told him that he no longer enjoyed their confidence, he would retire from service without any ill-feeling towards any one. A letter had been published in one of the local papers, in which the writer, after expressing his surprise that he (Mr. Scholefield) had joined the Southern Confederation, went on to say he ought,in fairness, to tell the electors what he meant by recognition, and asked them, " Does he want to bring a pressure on the Government by enforcing the breaking cf the blockade and forcing the country into a war with the United States? This is a question about which Mr. S. ought not to leave us in doubt." (Hear, hear.) Now, although be abominated above everything recurring to past speeches, as he was now on his defence ho must refer to matters of history. In the r3petch which he addressed to them in 1862, he said this :—" I am not for intervention, because that means war. I am not for mediation, because that means failure ; but I am for simple recognition." He was asked if he was ready to plunge this country into war by the recog nition, or if ho was prepared to call on the Govern ment to break the blockade. With regard to the blockade, if the legal advisers of the Crown said that there was a legal blockade, he for one would not lift his little finger to break it; and if by recog nition war was implied, then he would recoil from it with horror. (Hear, hear, from Mr. Bright.) He contended that recognition was not a departure from neutrality, and that it only implied the moral effect of public opinion; He thought that secession was an act of folly on the part of the South, but it was not for strangers or foreigners to judge what amount of oppression would justify revolt. The Southerns, whatever their grievances, were surely better judges of these grievances than we were. His own opinion was, that however foolish and illegal the secession may have been, it was a moral right conceded by the declaration of independence, and sanctioned by President Lincoln himself. Secession was no new thing in America. There was a seces sion in 1814. It was not then a secession of the South, but of the New England States. Being opposed to the war, they not only seceded but raised a flag of their own. How was it, then, that what was held to be patriotism then, was now to be re garded as treachery and impolicy ? He urged that the present war was not a war for the emancipation of the slaves ; and if it were, it was not the less on that account an immoral and unjustifiable war. (Cheers and hisses.) The preservation of the Union was the great idea which pervaded t h e minds of the Northerners from the President downward s . The President on one occasion declared—" M promised object in this struggle was to save the Union. (Cheers.) IVithout freeing any slave I would do it, and if I c ould save it by freeing all the slaves I would, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others elone I woul d do that. Wha t I would do about colour innn and slaves I would d o b ecause I edbe lieve it helps to save the Union." (Cheers.) After s uch an expressio n of opinion he was surprised to hear p eo ple say that the ob j e c t of the President was to put down slavery. (Hear, hear, and mark s o f dis approbation.) The proclamation emancipating th e slaves was issued by the President solely as a war measure, to crush the rebellion and restore the Union by war. (Cheers and uproar.) If this was a . war for the emancipetion of the slave, then he said most emphatically that it was an immoral war. If it was morally right in America to put down slavery in that country, it was equally morally right for this country to make war upon Spain to put down slavery in Cabe, upon Russia to put down serfdom, or upon the King of Dahomey to put down infan ticide. (Cheers, hisses, and great uproar.) He had never been an advocate for peace at any price, but he had always been opposed to any war that was not a decisive war. An aggressive war was, to his mind, a great crime, and would never meet with his sanction and assent. He was told he was blamed not so much for the opinions he had expressed in 1862, but for having joined a Confederate association. He thought he would have been more open to condem nation if, after expressing his views, he had not had the courage to carry them out. He was told that in consequence of the course he had taken he would lose his seat. Deeply as he valued the honour which they had conferred upon him, there was something he valued still more highly than a seat in Parlia ment, and that was the right to speak and act freely and independently within the range of the powers with which they themselves had entrusted him. If, for the course he had taken, they deemed him no longer worthy of representing them, he should bow to their decision without the slightest murmur. (Loud cheers.) Mr. BRIGn! then presented himself, and was re ceived with enthusiastic cheering. When silence was restored he spoke as follows :—Gentlemen, although I have often stood on this platform, yet I can assure you that on no former occasion have I felt it necessary so much to ask your forbearance and your silent attention as on this occasion. I had no hope a week ago that I should be able to attend here to-night, and to address this large audience— but, being here in the performance of my duty, as one of your representatives, I shall endeavour to lay before you the thoughts which are uppermost in my mind in which we all feel deeply interested. (Cheers.) There are two subjects which have been treated upon by my hon. colleague, about which I would just say a few words before I come to those matters on which I had intended to speak. The first is the question which now keeps Europe in suspense ; which may end in a war, or may end in some diplomatic accommodation of a long-standing quarrel. I will not go into the history of the Danish and German dispute. I have received since I came here a long and most able letter from a Ger man professor resident in this country on behalf of the German view of the question. Possibly he is now within the sound of my voice. I can only tell him, in telling you, that I agree entirely and from my heart with every word that my hon. colleague spoke upon that question. And I will say further, that if there be a possible Government in our day that will plunge this country into war under the pretence of maintaining the balance of power in Europe, and sustaining any kingdom there, be it little or great, that Government not only is not worthy the confidence of the people of England, but deserving of our execration and abhorrence. (Loud and prolonged cheers.) There is one other question to which my hon. friend has devoted a consider able portion of his speech. Ho said, and I believe it, that a year ago he felt it a painful thing to stand here and avow opinions contrary to those of many of his friends, and contrary to those which I had avowed before. I told you then how painful a thing it was for me to stand up and controvert on this platform any of the stetemen , s which he had adduced. I came here to-night intending to say no single word as to the question between North and South in the United States. My opinion is that the unanimous judgment of the people of England, so far as that is ever shown upon any public occasion, is in favour of the course which her Majesty's Gover ment have publicly declared it to be their intention to pursue. I believe that my hon. friend is mistaken in the view which he takes of the meaning and of the result of what he calls the recognition of the South. (Cheers.) I have seen it stated by authority, North as well as South, and by authority which I may term English, and by authority from France, that in the present condition of the quarrel recog nition, by all the usages of nations, must necessarily lead to something more—(cheers)—and therefore, although there were no question of a avery, although it was simply a political revolt, and that there were no special moral questions connected with it--I be lieve that, looking to the past usage of this country with regard to the rebellion of the Greeks against the Turks, and with regard to the revolt of the colonies of South America against Spain, that it can be demonstrated that these cases afford no support whatever to the argument that we are permitted to recognise the South, and that if such recognition did take place now it could only exasperate still more the tearible strife which exists on the North American continent, and would spread that strife over Europe itself. Now, I am myself of opin ion, and have been from the first, that the people of America so numerous, so powerful, so instructed, so capable in every way, would settle the differences of that continent without asking the old countries of Eu rope to take any share in them. I believe that in the providence of the Supreme the slaveholder—un taught and unteachable by fact or argument, or Christian precept—has been permitted to commit, I will not call it the crime, but the act of suicide upon himself. (Cheers.) Whether President Lincoln be in favour of abolition—whether the North are unanimous against slavery—whatever may be said or thought with regard to the transactions on that continent—he must be deaf and blind, and worse than deaf and blind, who does not perceive that, through the instrumentality of this strife, that most odious and most indescribable offence against man and against heaven, the slavery and bondage of four millions of fellow-creatures, is coming to a certain and a rapid end. (Loud cheers.) Sir, I will say of this question that 1 look forward to the time when I shall stand on this platform with my hon. col league, and when he will join with me—for he is honest enough and frank enough to do that—when he will join with me in rejoicing that there does not breathe a slave cn the North American continent— (loud cheers)—that the Union has been completely restored, and not less will he rejoice that England did not in the remotest manner, by a word or a breath, or the raisingof a finger, or the setting of a type, do one single thing to promote the atrocious object of the leaders of this accursed insurrection. (Continued cheering.) Now, Sir, I must ask you to listen to me a little on matters less exciting, and our friends down below (alluding to the crowded state of the hall), who are enduring a sort of purgatory, I must ask to be as compassionate to me as they can, and I will commiserate them as much as possible. About two months ago, on the 24th of November, I had the opportunity of making a speech in the town of Rochdale, where I live. The meeting was, I suppose, nearly as large as this. It was called for the purpose of affording an oppor tunity to our distinguished representative, Mr. Cobden, to address his constituents. There are very few meetings of that kind in Rochdale to which I am not ins ited, and in which I am not ex pected to take part. On that occasion I took the opportunity of objecting to those persons who think that everything is done in this country that need to be done, and that everybody is so happy that politics are at an end. I spoke particularly of the question of the million or million and a half of our labouring population employed in cultivating the soil. I need not tell you what you know per fectly, that from that time to this there has been rather a lively discussion in the newspapers about what was said on that occasion. I have had no opportunity of speaking, and I have not thought it necessary to write anything on the matter; but if you will give me your attention for five minutes, I should like to say a little about it. Now, what I said to that meeting on the subject of the land ss as thi that s : — f e u I d s a h l i o s u m l d w s t y h , r i e f g w a e r d w t e o r e t he fair lyland o represented, f England should be abolished; and that the agricultural 'Atbourer throughout the United Kingdom should be redeemed from that poverty and ser fd om which, up to this time, has been his lot. It would t a k e a l ent; speech, indeed it would take a night to go into the question of the condition of that class —but with laws such as we have, intended to bring large tracts of land into the possession of cue man, that one m an may exercise great political power, that system is a curse to the country, and dooms the agricultural labourer to perpetual poverty and degradation. Now, there were comments upon that speech, but I shall only refer to the comments of one paper, the Times. The Times, in an article on foreign politics, and speaking of the small States of Europe, which may have something to gain by change, said they may look upon these changes with something of that satisfaction with which the poor might regard Mr. Bright's proposition for the division among them of the lands of the rich. Well, now, you know that a correspondence took place almost immediately, and in consequence of that passage, between my friend Mr. Cobden and Mr. John Delane, the editor of the 7imes. Now this is what the limes had said two days after the speeches :—" This language"—that is the language that Mr. Cobden and I had used, and my language , I am free to say, was more strong on the general question than Mr. Cobden's—" this language, so often repeated, and so calculated to excite discontent among the poor and half-informed, has really only one intelligible meaning. Reduce the electoral fran chise ; and when you have done so you will obtain an assembly which will seize on the estates of the pro prietors of the land and divide them gratuitously among the poor." (Laughter.) Well, sir, when this notable newspaper editor was brought to book, what did he say ? On the same day he wrote a letter to Mr. Cobden, the 18th December, and he also had an article in his newspaper. In his letter he says this, " You seem to assume that I charged you with pro posing that this division should be accomplished by violence." Does anybody believe that anybody without violence can seize upon the lands of the rich and distribute them gratuitously—that is, for nothing—among the poor. On the same day, in an article, he made this statement, " Nobody was likely to charge these two gentlemen with recommending agrarian outrage; for their interests are as much bound up with social order, the rights of property, and the Queen's peace, as that of the whole peerage." That is true enough ; but why did he not find that out before he made that charge ? He says—" Nobody who read the single line which Mr. Cobden has seized for a peg to hang his defence upon would imagine for a moment that it pointed to violence." Well, now, that is a gentleman who professes to reconcile and lead the nation. Suppose that he had charged Adam Smith, the great apostle of political economy, with approving piracy, or if he had charged John Wesley with being a great encourager of drunkenness and profanity, would it have been more extraordinary than that he should charge Mr. Cobden and myself with instigating to agrarian outrage, the seizure of the estates of those who now hold them, and the di viding of them amongst the poor—of course, taking nothing from the poor for them, and, therefore, giv ing nothing to the rich for them ? Why, I will undertake to say, if there be two men in England who have more constantly and more earnestly for 25 years preached the doctrine of absolute honesty with regard to legislation, those two men are Mr. Cobden and myself.(Cheere.) But Mr. Cobden came forward to assail Mr. Delane with regard to this charge against me. He found a man in a mask en deavouring to stab me in the back—for he had not seen that the same man had been in a previous ar ticle also stabbing him—and he came forward and dragged his mask from him, and showed him, with whatever lineaments he is distinguished, to the gaze of the whole nation and the whole world. After denial and equivocation of every kind, this unmasked editor of this great journal was obliged to retire from the personal part of this controversy, and to skulk back into the anonymous, which suits him better. (Laughter and cheers.) Neither Mr. Cobden nor I have ever said anything to show that we thought it desirable to abolish by force of law anony mous writing in our newspapers ; but Mr. Cobden laments, as I do, and as you all do, that the anony mous system inevitably is a shelter for a man who has no sense of honour. I recollect a description which, I am sure, will suit Mr. Delano admirably. It was published some time ago in the city of New York, and describes a notorious politician there, who, if I am not mistaken, has been at the elbow of the New York correspondent of the limes fur the last 12 months, with what happy success to the fore cast and the honesty of that paper we all know. It was said of him that he was a just man, and a right eous, and he walked uprightly before the world; but when he was not before the world his walk was slant. iogdicular. (Laughter and cheers.) Sir, the limes newspaper, notwithstanding all this, is a power in this country—(hear, hear)—and a power in Europe. No man laments more than Ido that so much power should be associated with what I will call a godless intellect and a practical Atheism. No one laments more than I do that a paper that was once great in its independence has become now—what shall I say ? domesticated,—for the editor of the limes is now domesticated in the houses of Cabinet Minis ters and members of high families in London. He has learned now in this day that that paper might have been more useful than ever to fetch and carry for Cambridge House. (Laughter and cheers.) And, Sir, for aught I know, looking to what is said in the clubs in London of the dispensation of patronage to men who have been writers in that journal—lam not sure, unless what I say now may make it difficult, that some day or other Mr. Walter, the proprietor or chief proprietor of that paper, may not find himself placed in the House of Peers as a compensation for the services offered to the present Prime Minister of England. (Laughter and cheers.) But now pass ing from that subject, you will remember that my argument at Rochdale was this, that the agricultural labouring population of this country was in a de plorable condition, but I believed that to a large extent it was to be attributed to the unsound and unjust laws which regulate the possession and dis tribution of land. You know of course, living in Birmingham, as well as we know, that contrary to what exists in some countries, we have first the great landowner, who is always becoming richer — that is if he does not spend too much—his land is always becoming more valuable; you find him living in a better house, with more gorgeous fittings and with more splendid equipages. [A Voice—And so is the cotton owner.] No doubt if you pursue it further you will find the tenant farmer occupying larger farms, and with much greater apparent wealth. But if you come to the labourers who cultivate the land, by whose toil and whose sweat your tables are furnished with bread and with beef, and with many other things that they produce, you find labourers at this moment, I believe, at a greater distance from the landlord and from the tenant, probably, than they were almost at any former period. (Hear, hear.) [A Voice—No.] There is a gentleman in the body of the hall who evidently differs from me. I am very glad he is in the meeting. I would ask you whether, in past years, you have over read any letters in the limes newspaper signed " S. G. 0." Those letters are written by a gentleman of rare in telligence and of great benevolence, and his descrip tion I believe may be entirely relied upon. If any of you happened to read some three or four Months ago letters written from parts of Buckinghamshire and published in the Star newspaper with regard to the condition of that population, you will know what it is that I mean. But if you are unwilling to take their evidence, let us take that of a witness that nobody here will call in question, and that is, the evidence of the Saturday Retied). Rolf, on the 26th September last there was an article in that journal on agricultural labourers, in which it said—and I beg you to listen to it, for in point of fact it is a great point of my speech—" When the dull season of the year comes round—that is, between October and the meeting of Parliament— all sorts of odd persons and things have their share of public attention, and even agricultural labourers are pitied and discussed. At other times they live on with no one to care much for them—the farmer looking on them as his natural enemies, the parson's kindly soul getting weary of his long combat with their helpless stolid ignorance, and the squire not knowing what he can do for them further than build two or three Elizabethan cottages, covered with honeysuckles, close to his gates. If foreigners write about them, we are moved to a languid shame and sadness by thinking how true the picture, and what wretched, uncured for, untaught brutes the people are who raise the crops on which we live." Bear in mind that is not my language, but the lan guage of a great friend of the agricultural interests. The writer says—" There is a wailing for the dirt and vice and misery which must prevail in houses where seven or eight persons of both sexes and all ages are penned up together for the night in thu one rickety, foul, vermin- haunted bedroom. The picture of agricultural life unrolls itself before us as it is painted by those who know it best. We see the dull, clouded mind, the bovine gaze, the brutality and recklessness, the simple audacity, and the confessed hatred of his betters, which mark the English peasant, unless some happy fortune has saved him from the general lot, and persuaded him that life has something be sides beer that the poor man may have and may re lish," Then he goes on to declare " that the old feudalism of England--the state of things when they yet were serfs, and when the lords of the soil were almost a different order of beings—still colours the relations of the rich and the poor." Perhaps you would like to know what he says an agricultural labourer ought to be and do. He says—" It is looked on as the duty and place of the poor man to stay for ever in his native village, to work for ten or twelve shillings a week, to bring up a large family respectably on the money, to touch his hat to the gentry, to go to church regularly, and make out as much as he can of the service. To be content and happy. To hate the public-house and feel no longing for company, or a bright fire, or gossip; to be guided towards heaven by the curate and the young ladies." (Laughter.) He adds—" This is the poor man which modern feudalism aims at pro ducing." This is the testimony of the Saturday Review—and what do you think the writer pro poses ? He proposes that instead of a man receiv ing his parochial relief from the parish, he shall be allowed to receive it from a larger area, namely, the union. He says that a law, hardly ever put in force, by which a working man who breaks his eon tract with his master is treated as a criminal, should be abolished. I do not think that these remedies would be sufficient for the malady he has described in such powerful lan guage, and I ask you this question—ls it an un changeable law of heaven that the agricultural popu lation of this country shall continue in that condi tion ? (Cries of no, and cheers.) They tell you your agriculture is far better than the agriculture of any other country, that you can produce a larger quan tity of wheat than any other producer from a given surface. We know that there is the greatest market in the world close at our doors, and the means of conveyance to every part of the kingdom. Then I want to know why it is that the labouring popula tion on the farms of the - country are in the condition in which they are described ; is it so in the most civilised countries in Europe ? Is it so in the United States of America ? I could give it to you (only read ing evidence from books is not suited to a meeting like this, from the highest in rank, from the most culti vated in mind, from those most extensively known in public affairs; and I could prove to you beyond all contest, that in all those countries in Europe, where the land is divided and the people have the chance of having some of it—at least those who are industrious and frugal—that the condition of the agricultural peasant population is infinitely superior to anything to be seen in Great Britain and Ireland. (Hear, hear,) Well, then, you may ask me very reasonably—What is the difference be tween the laws of these countries and the laws of ours, and what change do you propose ? I will tell you in as few words as I can. In the greatest pore tion of the continent of Europe, in France, in Ger many, in Belgium,'in Holland, in Norway, and it is likely to spread over Europe, the state of the law is this. It follows what I believe to be the natural law of affection between parents and children, that a large portion of the property of the parent must by will, or if not by will the law will order it to be equally divided among the children. What is the case with respect to all property but land ? All the property of the parent, according to the number of his children, must be divided amongst them, except what he may be queath by will. You are to be frightened by this law of bequest as if it was something very dreadful. Why it only follows the rule which merchants and manufacturers and all other people in the world have followed in latter days, in treating their children with equal affection and equal justice. (Cheers.) Go to the United States and you will see a different state of the law from what you will find in this country. There a man may leave his property as he likes among his children, because the United States law believes that natural affection and justice form of themselves a sufficient law in the majority of cases, and therefore that it is not necessary to en force them by any statute. If a man dies without a will, the law of the United States takes his pro perly, and looking upon his children with equal affection and equal justice, makes that distribution which it believes the just and loving parent would have made. Bat if you come to this country what do you find ? This—That with regard to all kinds of property except that which is called real pro perty—the land of the country and the houses upon it—our law does exactly the same. It divides it equally amongst the children, because it knows that that is what the parent should have done, and would have done if he had been a good parent. (Cheers.) Bat when it comes to the question of land, then, contrary to the European law, which makes a sta tute according to natural justice —contrary to the United States law, which, when there is no will, makes a law in accordance wiih natural justice, our law does exactly that which natural justice would forbid. (Cheers.) I should like to know if anybody is prepared to deny this. Personalty—that is, property which is not land—is divided equally. The property which is land is not divided equally, but is given to the eldest son in a lump. Now, tell me whether the principles which the law of Eu rope for the most part wishes to enforce, that which the law of America enforces when there is no will, that which we enforce when land is out of the question, tell me if that is not a more just law, approving itself to the hearts of men and before the eye of Heaven—than the law by which we send as beggars into the world half a dozen children in order that we may make one rich in the possession of the land, (Cheers.) What are the reasons ? These things are not done without reasons, for they are high political reasons. (Laugh ter.) Now, these reasons are very curious in some countries: In Turkey it has been the custom a yea l one time—it is hardly broken dow n wielderslof the sceptre should even destroy their younger brothers, lest they should become competi tors with them for the throne. What would you think if the law of this country doomed the younger children to the want of freedom and the want of education, and conferred freedom and education on the elder son, leaving the rest to go into the streets? Bat it would be just as reasonable to cut off ell the youngers boys and girls from education as it is to cut them off from their fair share of their father's property. But you will find to-morrow morning, in all probability , an edib3r in this town —who does not servo you genera ll y , as I have noticed, with strong meat—you will find that, if he comments on this part of my s peech, he will say, what use would it be to make a law that all the pro few men die without a will t hat it will make ver y perty shall be divided in cas e there is no will ? So little difference. Well, I will tell you what diffe rence it will make. It would take all the tremen dous sanction of the law from the side of evil and pine° It on the aide of good. There . is a case, it is the only one Which occurs to me at present, which happened about the time-when the American colonies were separted from this country. In the State of Virginia laws of primogeniture and entail were en forced in the most rigid manner. 11Ir. Jefferson, after wards the President,considered it one of the greatest acts of his life that he had prevailed on the Legis lature of Virginia to abolish this law, an d in his life I find this statement; ;—" The class which pro vided for the perpetuation of ii:.' wea lth also mono polised the civil offices." You will i,.: able to judge t whether that is the case in this co untr y . (Cheers.) Amongst the reasons which he g ave for abolabol ishing entail., he said he wished to m ake an opening forth.: aristocracy of virtue and talent, which now has so wisely provided for the direction of the interests of society, and scattered with equal hand throughout all its conditions. When he came to the abolition of the law of primogeniture , it is stated by his biogra phert dis that this change had n ot merely altered t r ibution of that portion of la nded property whi he c - h is t ran smitted by the silent operation of the law, but that it had also operated on public opinion so as to influence testamentary dispositions by the proprie tors. He went on to :lay that cases are very rare in which a parent makes by his will a much more eun- equal distribution of his property a mong his child ren than the law itself would make. It is thus that laws themselves—the creature of public opinion— often powerfully react upon it. The writer goes on to show that the effect of the change had been to alter the distribution of land. It lessened the chances of ever being so enormously rich, and it gave much great©r chances for moderate riches and comfort ; and that if there were fewer coaches-and-six in the State of Virginia, there were twenty times as many carriages and pairs. (Cheers and laughter.) The question of primogeniture I have briefly touched on. The question of entail is much on the same footing. I will only say a word or two on the subject. The object of entailing land is to keep great estates to gether, and to keep them in one family. Under this system land in this country is sometimes tied up for fifty, eighty, or one hundred years, and no person has the power to sell it, however advantageous it may be to the proprietors themselves and to the pub lic that the land should be sold. (Hear, hear.) And then we come to the difficulties of the question of transfer. If you will ask gentlemen who are near me, who are connected with the law, they will tell you that it always takes months, and sometimes years, to provide a title, and of course that has no inconsiderable effect in increasing the amount of the purchase-money. (Cheers.) Now, may I ask what are the particular reasons for which this state of things is maintained? It is for the very reason for which this system was established 800 years ago that there may be in this country a handful of persons — twice as many, perhaps, as there are in this room, who are the owners of nearly all the land in the country—in whose hands is concentrated nearly all the power, and by whom the government of the country is mainly conducted, and amongst whom the patronage of the Government is mainly distributed. (Loud cheers.) In every country of the world as far as I know, the possessors of land are the possessors of power. In France at this moment we all know perfectly well that notwithstanding there may be a revolution now and then in the streets of Paris, still if you come to the greater question of voting, of the opinion of numbers, the proprietors of the land of France are the vast majority of the voting population, and ten or twelve years ago it was their suffrages that conferred the supreme power upon the present Emperor of the French. (A Voice—That's a lie. Laughter.) If you cross the Atlantic and study the political system of the United States, where almost all the farmers are the owners of their farms, you will find that they are the holders of political power. The city of New York, through its mayor, it may be at one time, or the governor of the State at another, and the news papers of New York may denounce the policy of the Government at 'Washington ; but it is not the tenant but the land-owning farmers and cultivators of the great States in the interior of the country who are the depositories of political power, by whose will alone the President of the United States is able to carry on the great matters which belongs to his exalted station—(cheers) —and it is the same in the Southern States—for the great planting populatioia —the great owners of plantations, are the life and soul of the disorders which are now unhappily reigning in those States. If you come to your own country, if you come to your own county of War wick, you will find that two or three landowners can sit down and determine who shall or who shall not go to Parliament in the pretended representa tion of the population of this county. (Cries of Shame.) I believe that these vast properties, which are of no real advantage to those who hold them — for £lOO,OOO or £200,000 can give no more real happiness than £lO,OOO or £5,000 a-year—l believe that these great properties give great political power, and this, which we call our great territorial system,prevails to an extent in this country which is probably unknown in any other, and leaves the cul tivators of the soil ignorant and hopeless and de graded. (Cheers.) There is a great tendency to larger farms throughout the country, which makes it still more difficult even for a labourer even to be come a tenant, or even to rise above his present condition. An illustration occurs to me which I once before used in this room. I see a ladder—a social ladder—up which I want to see the poor, and depressed, end unfortunate nine-shil lings or ter-shillings a week labourer ascend gradually. I ehould rejoice to see him getting up a few steps and becoming a farmer, even in a small way, or becoming the owner of a piece of land; but I find that at six, or eight, or ten feet every stave of the ladder is broken out, and from his low position he has no chance of ascending. Let there be slip of small farms and small estates, and let land generally be bought and sold, and then the labourer will have something to hope for, some thing to save even his small savings for, and by chance some of them may find their way from their humble and melancholy position to one which I wish from my soul every labourer in the country could occupy, (Loud cheers.) Now, for fear that that the man in the mask—he has got his mask on again for a time—(laughter)—for fear the man in the mask should misrepresent my views, let me tell you that I am not against great estates, or great farmers, or great properties, or great factories ; but I have a great desire to see small estates, and small farmers, and small factories. In this country, where there is such a great creation of wealth, there is always a great desire for the accumulation of land. I know the case of a nobleman—it is in a southern county—l am speaking from public report—who is said to have £120,000 a year, but who being a wise man as regards his expenditure, only spends £40,000 a year; but it is a mystery to me how he does it. (Laughter.) He has thus £BO,OOO a year left, and what does he do with it ? Why ee buys every farm, every estate that offers; and thus his estate is gra dually growing bigger. I don't blame him for that. I applaud him in this respect, that he is a man who does not waste his property ; and I have always heard the nobleman to whom I refer bears an excel lent character in the neighbourhood where he lives There are persons who come from Manchester and from Leeds, and I hope from Birmingham, who can purchase considerable estates. These is always a tendency in this country, especially whore wo have so much manufacturing and commercial industry and wealth, to buy estates. There possessions give great social position and great political influence. I am not complaining of this; it is a natural, and a just, and a healthy thing; it is desirable that the farmer should have the stimulus of ambition to acquire larger farms, and that those possessing estates should wish to acquire larger estates. This is the stimulus that leads men to strive for some thing honourable in this country. But to have all these influences working in that direction, and to add to this influence the force of a most intricate and complicated sys tem of law—to give all these forces greater forces, is in my opinion contrary to all the true interests of England ; and I believe that if it goes on in this way for another half century as it has been for the last half century it may cause discontent and great embarrassment within this now peaceful kingdom, (Cheers.) What I propose is this—it is the most moderato that can be proposed. If you want to see an admirable description of what I think it would be wise to do you will find it in a paper which certainly is not very Radical—l mean the Spectator--a weekly Lon don newspaper. There was an article on land )wners to the State of Now York. The writer says with regard certain changes, "No doubt Mr. Bright did not clnsider them sufficient for his purposes and wishes." Now he is quite mistaken. The chan g es which hoproposes are Tore extensive than any changes which I ever proposed, either in public or private. 'What ar o these changes ? First of all, that the law sha ll declare that when any person owning landed property die s without making a declaration . of it by will the law shall dist:ibute it on the same prple that it now adopts with any other kind o . f property. For suppose a man has got money in the bank, and I wish every b o dy had—(cheer s and laugh ter)—suppose he has mac hi n ery in a mill, or merchandise in a warehouse, or shares and parchments in his safe—when he dies the law makes a distribution of all that property in accordance as I believe with the principle of parental affection and justice. I say let tha t p rinciple be extended to all property of which a man may die possessed. In that respect I want to go no farther. (Cheers.) With regard to the question of en ta:tsy I would say this—the Spectator proposes that a y , ma y entail his property so as to p revent his heir the ne xt heir from disposing of it —that is, that tand here shall only be two persons in the entail. I only ti l at . a ma . n . may leave his property to propose this, any persons who nuy bo the time ho makes his But at present he can leave it to a number of people, awill.nd to the child unborn, and which may not be born until 90 years after the making the will. I would alter that sys tem. I should be content to have the property left to per sons in existence, and whose names should appear in the will ; and you will not find as A, B, or C died off that the property would come into the ha nd of a man w h o would have ale absolute disposal of ,it. (Cheers.) That is what I 1 ti R' , (